Press Release

CFPB must refocus on consumer protection and innovation

Washington, D.C. – Tomorrow at 10 AM, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for several Trump appointees to regulatory finance roles, including Jonathan McKernan as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Since Trump’s inauguration, the CFPB has been ordered to freeze virtually all actions, rulemaking, and pending litigation to reevaluate the overall role of the agency. Lawsuits have left the CFPB’s status in limbo.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington D.C., reacted to McKernan’s potential confirmation and the future of the CFPB:

“The CFPB was designed to help financial consumers navigate the marketplace and punish bad actors but morphed into a tool of federal regulators seeking to slow innovation in the sector. If the CFPB continues to exist under McKernan, it should return to its mandate, shed political agendas, and support consumer innovation,” said Ossowski.

Ossowski added, “Since its founding, the CFPB has avoided offering constructive guidance to institutions, including upcoming neobanks and FinTech firms. Most of CFPB’s time is spent defending its own existence in federal court rather than advancing legitimate consumer protection cases.

READ in REAL CLEAR POLITICS: DOGE is right to defang the CFPB

After weeks of consternation in Washington about whether the CFPB would be closed down entirely, the Trump administration indicated on Tuesday that the bureau would remain functional.

“Policing fraud and deception in our financial markets is an important role for the federal government to play, so if CFPB remains, it should be laser-focused on protecting consumers and not obstructing financial innovation that gives consumers more options,” concluded Ossowski.

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The UK Government’s spying requests force Apple to phase out encryption for users

London, UK – As of this afternoon, new Apple users in the UK can no longer enable Advanced Data Protection (APD) of their data, an end-to-end encrypted backup. In response to the government’s requests to secure a backdoor to Apple’s encrypted ecosystem, the company has decided to abandon this feature, and will still only provide data with law enforcement, if they have a warrant.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), reacted to the news:

“This unfortunate move is a direct result of the government’s own decision to force tech companies to hand over the keys to our data, giving them a blank cheque to access any of our information without due process.”

“Everyone in the UK should be extremely worried about what the government aims to access not just in the UK, but across the world. Over 40 public authorities, including police, intelligence agencies, HMRC, and even local councils can apply for such warrants with broad powers for communication and data surveillance, and with guaranteed approval.”

“The UK government has set a precedent, and cast a new reputation that underscores the erosion of personal liberties and privacy in a digital age where these values are needed more than ever.”

“This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The CCC calls on the government to once again outline its reasons for the necessity and proportionality of such measures as soon as Monday in Parliament, and to urge parliamentarians in opposition to hold the government to account so that consumers can once again elect to encrypt and secure their data.

The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organisation dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption.

A Statement on the Kids Off Social Media Act

In response to today’s Senate Commerce Committee markup of S. 278, the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA), the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) issued the following statement from Stephen Kent, Media Director at the CCC.

The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) isn’t just an overreach—it’s a direct assault on free expression and consumer privacy. A government-mandated social media ban for users under 13 is a blatant First Amendment violation, preventing minors from accessing even platforms where algorithms are used to curate age-appropriate experiences. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that minors have constitutional rights to information, as clarified in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)—but KOSMA ignores that precedent entirely.

This bill also goes beyond banning young users—it restricts content recommendations for anyone under 17, forcing these users into chronological content feeds that don’t take into consideration their unique interests, background or demonstrated preferences. Sponsors of the bill point out that algorithms can systematically serve consumers harmful content, but appear unwilling to acknowledge that the opposite is also true. KOSMA’s approach doesn’t solve safety concerns; it just limits access to information and ties the hands of tech innovators to make customized experiences for consumers of different ages. Worse still, KOSMA pressures platforms into age verification measures that endanger user privacy. While the bill claims verification isn’t required, there’s no other way to comply—meaning platforms will be forced to collect sensitive personal data, exposing all users to potential breaches and government surveillance.

And where does this slippery slope end? If Washington can ban social media for kids today, what’s next? Restrictions on news sites, video streaming, or online gaming? Lawmakers should focus on real solutions—strengthening privacy protections and teaching digital literacy—rather than embracing censorship and surveillance. Protecting kids online should never come at the cost of their rights, but that’s exactly what KOSMA does.

The CFPB is not protecting or serving consumers. Freeze it.

Washington, D.C. – Today, following the appointment of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to become acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), several directives were issued to freeze virtually all actions, rules, and pending litigation carried out by the agency. A source inside CFPB indicated the agency is essentially shut down for the time being.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group, reacted to the news with a note of optimism,

“The CFPB was designed to help financial consumers navigate the marketplace and punish bad actors but instead has become a tool of federal regulators seeking to delay or slow down financial innovation. It’s obstructionist and politicized.

The CFPB largely duplicated the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and added another layer of complexity to financial firms looking to innovate. CFPB has restrained credit availability and made it more difficult for consumers to get access to capital such as business loans,” said Ossowski.

Observers are the media and Congress have expressed concern about consumer welfare with the CFPB being frozen under the Trump administration. Created by Dodd-Frank and opened in 2011 as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, CFPB was launched with relative immunity to outside oversight, despite being funded by the Federal Reserve.

Ossowski added, “The CFPB has spent more time defending their existence in federal court than advancing legitimate consumer protection cases. Consumers already have a responsive FTC, SEC, and the ability to advance lawsuits at the state and local level when harm has been done.”

READ in TOWNHALL: Ossowski on how the CFPB got a pass from the Supreme Court, but it’s past its prime

According to Bloomberg Law, Bessent’s first actions were to suspend all activities including investigations and external communications out of the CFPB, subjecting them to strict review by the new administration.

“Policing fraud and deception in our financial markets is an important role in our federal system, but too many cops on the beat has led to confusion for innovators and consumers alike, all the while granting questionable constitutional authority to the CFPB.

At best, the CFPB is an agency without watchers. At its worst, it’s an unaccountable bureaucracy blocking innovation and discouraging entrepreneurship,” concluded Ossowski.

Trump’s Tariff Standoff Hurts Consumers

Washington, D.C. – Over the weekend, President Trump announced 25% tariffs to be applied to goods coming from both Canada and Mexico beginning February 4th. Similar tariffs would be applied to Chinese imports at just 10%. Already, things are changing. Mexico’s president Claudia Sheinbaum just announced that after a conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump and concessions on border enforcement, tariffs are on hold for another month.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, reacted to the news of a pause on US-Mexico tariffs by saying,

“We’re glad that the pause button is being hit here, but the uncertainty of whether prices will jump 25% tomorrow or next month is enough to leave consumers frustrated and confused. Economic uncertainty limits the economic potential for everyone involved in this trade dispute.”

Trump posted on social media that he spoke Monday morning with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and would “be speaking to him again at 3:00 P.M.” While Mexico is standing down on a trade war with the U.S., Canada remains uncertain.

“The problem here is that Trump boosters are telling themselves that “tariffs work” when what we’re seeing is more akin to foreign policy negotiation between neighbors, not economics. Maybe the threat of tariffs work for President Trump’s agenda, but if tariffs are actually implemented, consumers will see exactly what they do, which is explode the prices for everyday goods,” said Ossowski.

READ in THE HILL: CCC’s Elizabeth Hicks and Sabine El-Chidiac on how the tariffs will harm both American and Canadian consumers

The North American trading bloc is uniquely positioned to thrive in the years ahead. The deeply integrated supply chains between the U.S. and Canada have long helped keep consumer prices down, particularly in the automotive sector. In 2022 alone, Canada exported $12.9 billion in motor vehicle parts and accessories, with an overwhelming $11.4 billion of that destined for the U.S.

Tariffs on Canada could still happen as soon as Tuesday, meaning an immediate impact on US and Canadian consumers if retaliation is carried out.

In Michigan, Canadian automotive trade accounts for 13% of the state’s gross product. With Canada supplying $132 billion worth of oil and petroleum to the U.S. annually, there’s little chance the Trump administration could replace that supply with domestic production quickly enough to prevent a spike at the pump.

“If this afternoon phone call between Trump and Trudeau doesn’t go well, and they tend not to see eye to eye on much, Americans could see gas prices beyond the $4.00 mark before Valentine’s Day. We don’t think the livelihoods of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and everyday consumers should be on the bargaining table,” concluded Ossowski.

Letter to HHS: Concerns Regarding ICCPUD Alcohol Intake & Health Report

January 24, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Alcohol, Dietary Guidelines, Press Release
0 comments

Today the Consumer Choice Center submitted a formal comment to the Department of Health and Human Services to express our sincere concern about bias in the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) Alcohol Intake and Health (AIH) report, which could impact the 2025-20230 US Dietary Guidelines. Consumers need the best available information and clearly communicated, in-context summation of risks associated with alcohol, and the ICCPUD failed to do this, as CCC has previously made known.

HHS-CCC-Kent-Response (1)Download

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

A PFAS ban in the European Union sows economic chaos and puts energy security at risk

On Monday, the 20th of January 2025, EU environmental commissioner Jessika Rosswall announced to the press that the European Union was seeking a bloc-wide ban on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (known under the acronym PFAS) in consumer products. The measure is set to come into force next year, as the Commission will determine exemptions based on the “essential” role some PFAS products play in the economy.

Emil Panzaru, Research Director at the Consumer Choice Center, warned that the decision would only have negative consequences: “A ban will cause economic chaos. PFAS are integral to thousands of items, from medical equipment to semiconductor chips, batteries, and household appliances. Without them, we cannot have laptops, TVs, modern cars, solar panels, heat pumps, cooking appliances, or computers.”

Panzaru added: “The decision contradicts the EU’s efforts to shore up its microchip industry, nullifying the increased investments promised by earlier 40-billion euro subsidy from the European Chip Act. Worse still, replacements for the PFAS that go into renewables are either impossible to find or come in the form of rare earth minerals from China, undermining the EU’s strategic autonomy and energy security.”

“Talk of exemptions to try and calm doubts is unrealistic. Calling some of these functions ‘essential’ and others ‘non-essential’ is a politically arbitrary decision that does not reflect economic realities. After all, the coating developed for non-stick cooking proved helpful in medical stents that save lives in the batteries that help power cars, and in the microchips that power our digital age. Besides, even the sections exempt from a ban must follow strict rules for use and disposal, creating artificial scarcities where there should be abundance in consumer goods.”

Panzaru concluded: “The only sensible course of action is to renounce the plan for a sweeping ban entirely. Instead, PFAS products should be evaluated rationally and on a case-by-case basis. Keep in mind both the costs and benefits of their use and focus on the actual concentrations that real-life people are likely to encounter. In some pollution cases, applying existing environmental rules more thoroughly is all that is needed.”

See HERE for an early detailed breakdown of the negative effects of an EU-wide PFAS ban by the Consumer Choice Center in the press.

– PRESS RELEASE ENDS –

About the Consumer Choice Center:

The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption.

FDA’s Ban on Red Dye No.3 Defies Scientific Evidence

January 15, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Dietary Guidelines, FDA, Press Release
0 comments

Today the FDA issued a highly anticipated ban on Red Dye No. 3 as a color additive for food and ingested drugs. In their public statement, the FDA says in the same span of 295 words that Red No. 3 is being banned for representing a threat to public health, while also saying “there is no evidence showing FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in humans.“

Stephen Kent, an analyst for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), an international consumer advocacy group, said of the FDA action:

“These color additives are in food and medicines for a reason, and it’s because consumers by-in-large enjoy the products more when they’re aesthetically pleasing. The campaign against Red No. 3 has been a scientific empty vessel from the start. Proponents of this ban will say that it’s not a big deal to have cereal, frozen treats and cupcakes be less colorful when public health is at stake, but they’ve failed to show evidence of harm and have instead relied on misinformation campaigns by social media influencers to frighten the public,” said Stephe Kent.

The FDA is relying on enforcing the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, which prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.

The ban takes effect in January 2027, offering further evidence of the lack of emergency or public health impact of these common additives on consumers.

Kent continued, “You could argue the FDA is simply enforcing the law as it is written. When rats were exposed to the dye at extraordinarily high levels, cancer was a result – but it simply isn’t the case in human beings, and they know it. So the law needs to be changed and the public needs better information about the known risks. Red Dye No. 3 isn’t harmful, so we’re just going to have less visually appealing goods because of a law from 1960.”

Read more about the Red No. 3 debate from the CCC

Washington Examiner

Newsmax Online

Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Center told Newsmax prior to the FDA ban, “Here’s the crucial point to consider: The word “linked” does a lot of heavy lifting here because this particular dye only affected rats that were given unusually high doses in scientific studies. One could write at length about the reliability of animal studies and what they really mean for humans, but the mere fact that the doses were much higher than what even a human would consume shows us that environmental activists do not understand the concept of dosage. Too much of anything will be bad for you — in fact, “too much” describes quite literally the exact quantity that is excessive. For instance, this is equally true for glyphosate residues in beer or aspartame sweetener in Diet Coke. You would need to drink 264 gallons of beer for the glyphosate to adversely affect you or gulp down 36 cans of sugar-free Coke for the aspartame to be bad for you.”

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

ICCPUD Report on Alcohol Deserves Skepticism

January 14, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Alcohol, Dietary Guidelines, Press Release
1 comment

After months of controversy around its development, Health and Human Services (HHS) has published its highly anticipated report on alcohol and health through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD). The research was slammed in an October letter from 100 US Congressmen who expressed concern over its lack of transparency and known conflicts of interest by researchers involved in the ICCPUD report.

The Consumer Choice Center’s (CCC) David Clement offered skepticism about the ICCPUD findings, saying “This research was way off target from the ICCPUD’s purpose, which is preventing underage drinking, and has instead focused on promoting abstaining from alcohol across all age groups. You don’t have to dig deep to find the ICCPUD report is co-authored by Tim Naimi, an anti-alcohol activist researcher with declared financial ties to the International Order of Good Templars, also known as Movendi, a temperance group.”

<< Read the CCC in the Washington Examiner on ICCPUD report >>

The ICCPUD report directly conflicts with another government-funded study on alcohol that was published in December by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which had a Congressional mandate for their research on alcohol. It found that moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption, and a lower risk of “all-cause mortality”. Heavy drinking increases those risks.

Clement continued, “This wave of conflicting information is a problem for consumers because the federal government’s consistent messaging on responsible drinking has made a real positive difference in curbing abuse. A prohibition mindset always backfires by misconstruing risk calculations to the public”

<< Read David Clement in the Financial Post on alcohol studies >>

There has been a steady stream of breaking news on alcohol and consumer health in recent weeks, peaking with the US Surgeon General’s advisory on a “causal link” between alcohol consumption and the risk of contracting cancer. The Consumer Choice Center has also expressed concern over that report and its stretched definition of what constitutes a meaningful “risk” to the consumer.

“It is no small thing that 100 members of Congress asked for this ICCPUD research to be suspended before the new year. It hasn’t been transparent and did not allow for the proper vetting of researchers. And now we know why,” said David Clement. Experts from the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) have called the work of authors behind the ICCPUD “pseudo-scientific”. “

“With the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines coming together, Americans rely on unbiased government guidance for food and beverages like alcohol, and this ICCPUD report is highly counterproductive,” concluded Clement.

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

Biden admin’s Christmas wish for a Google split should get a lump of coal

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedies in the case of United States v. Google LLC that aim to completely dismantle the US tech company, deprive consumers of any future innovation, and set a dangerous precedent for American competitiveness.

Following the Department of Justice’s proposed remedies filed with the court on last month, the California-based search and ad tech giant had its chance to respond with their own filing Friday evening, blasting the government’s demands.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“Breaking apart a cornerstone of the American Internet economy is truly without precedent and beyond the pale for a country that is supposed to revere innovation,” said Ossowski.

“The government wants to forever restrict the company’s abilities to compete in evolving industries like artificial intelligence, where the US is facing massive competitive pressure from more authoritarian countries like China.

“Giving the government a regulatory razor blade to carve up a central node of our tech sector does not bode well for consumers who can already choose from a host of different products fit to their taste,” added Ossowski.

“Rather than picking winners and losers, the government should tamper down its trustbusting and let consumers vote with their clicks, rather than having that decision made for them. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” concluded Ossowski.

###

CFPB’s fraud lawsuit against peer-to-peer payment apps reeks of regulation by enforcement that will harm consumers

December 20, 2024
By Yaël Ossowski
In Legal Reform, Press Release, Tech Regulation
0 comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Arizona against the owners of the payment platform Zelle, alleging that app has not done enough to combat payment frauds committed by scammers.

Zelle, jointly owned by seven of the nation’s largest banks, is a popular FinTech peer-to-peer payment platform used by consumers to easy send and receive money without additional fees.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, responds to the suit:

“In the waning days of the Biden Administration, the CFPB is overstepping its authority in suing a peer-to-peer payment app used by millions of consumers to send and receive payments and ignoring the thousands of scammers they could easily reach,” said Ossowski.

“In targeting the platform rather than punishing those who perpetuate fraud, the agency is regulating by enforcement, hoping to introduce backdoor liability for FinTech firms and payment services that hasn’t been endorsed or approved by Congress. This could make debanking and offloading of customers even worse.

“Payment services already employ strict anti-fraud and scam measures that allow consumers to get their money back. Using lawfare to enact new policies will result in costly and intrusive rules that will degrade the consumer experience, make it more difficult for consumers to use or even qualify for these apps, and likely create more amenable conditions for bad actors to steal,” concluded Ossowski.

Earlier this month, the Consumer Choice Center launched a policy primer to evaluate legislative solutions for combatting and alleviating the harm caused by payment scams and frauds.

This primer analyzes the Protecting Consumers From Payment Scams Act, and whether the liability remedies proposed would help combat consumer fraud and scams or would ultimately create unintended consequences for consumers that do not punish wrongdoers.

The primer includes key policy suggestions for legislators to help consumers avoid frauds and scams while demonstrating the errors that would come with expanded institutional liability:

Shifting liability to financial institutions and payment apps will ultimately backfire on consumers, leading to more expansive financial surveillance, higher costs due to more compliance and reimbursements, and a generally degraded consumer experience that eradicates the advantage of popular financial tech and banks.
Consumer financial education is the most effective way to prevent scams.
A national privacy law fostering innovation while protecting consumers
Stiffer penalties for individuals committing frauds and scams

READ THE PRIMER HERE

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

NASEM Findings On Alcohol Safety Are A Win For Science & Consumer Choice

December 18, 2024
By Yaël Ossowski
In Alcohol, Dietary Guidelines, Press Release
0 comments

After Congress allocated $1.3 million to the Department of Agriculture and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to study alcohol’s impact on consumer health, the findings have been released in time to inform the 2025-2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. NASEM’s findings were published today in the Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health and reported on by POLITICO.

Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center praised the National Academies’ process to research on alcohol, saying,

“There has been intense downward pressure by anti-alcohol activists within the World Health Organization to steer government recommendations against any and all consumption of alcohol, even at responsible levels. Consumers rely on unbiased government research to inform their dietary choices and NASEM delivered on their Congressionally backed mandate to review alcohol’s impact on individual health.”

The Biden Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) also launched its own health study on alcohol, not sanctioned by Congress, through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking. Consumer advocates and 100 Congressmen expressed concern that the HHS report lacked basic transparency and independence from activists seeking to discourage Americans from drinking alcohol.

** READ MORE FROM STEPHEN KENT: End HHS’ Misadventure on Alcohol Research (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) **

Kent continued, “The appearance of outside influence by the international temperance group, Movendi, is not an insignificant concern with how HHS has approached their research. Imagine a set of federal dietary guidelines featuring input from PETA regarding meat consumption. NASEM had a sufficiently transparent process that involved Congress and should be the only report considered by the USDA as they finalize the next set of US Dietary Guidelines.”

Takeaways from the National Academies report include:

Moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to no alcohol consumption.
Moderate drinking is also associated with a lower risk of “all-cause mortality”, though heavy drinking increases such risks.
The existing recommendations of limiting drinking to 2 drinks a day for men and 1 for women are reasonable and safe guidelines for consumer enjoyment of alcohol.

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

CFPB must refocus on consumer protection and innovation

The UK Government’s spying requests force Apple to phase out encryption for users

The CFPB is not protecting or serving consumers. Freeze it.

Trump’s Tariff Standoff Hurts Consumers

Letter to HHS: Concerns Regarding ICCPUD Alcohol Intake & Health Report

A PFAS ban in the European Union sows economic chaos and puts energy security at risk

FDA’s Ban on Red Dye No.3 Defies Scientific Evidence

ICCPUD Report on Alcohol Deserves Skepticism

Biden admin’s Christmas wish for a Google split should get a lump of coal

CFPB’s fraud lawsuit against peer-to-peer payment apps reeks of regulation by enforcement that will harm consumers

NASEM Findings On Alcohol Safety Are A Win For Science & Consumer Choice

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA